Category Archives: Free Speech

Dear Friend—Freshman Republican Scott Taylor of Virginia is a fraud. He campaigned as a conservative but time and again has sided with liberal extremist Nancy Pelosi. Just recently, Taylor joined Pelosi in trying to kill legislation that would have protected religious charitable adoption groups who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman from being punished by the government over their religious belief that children put up for adoption are entitled to the love of a mother and a father.

Scott Taylor has revealed himself to be a puppet of the left and radical LGBT extremists who regularly trot out gratuitous charges of "discrimination." Groups like Catholic Charities and Bethany Lutheran Services have had to stop providing adoption services because they are simply unwilling to sacrifice their religious beliefs to the demands of government agencies doing the bidding of these LGBT extremists. Children suffer as a result of these governmental demands. Across the country, people of faith are being targeted, punished and pushed to the margins simply because they believe what the bible says, that marriage is one man and one woman. This is wrong, and our laws need to be fixed so that good and decent people who love children and want to help them are not punished because of their Christian beliefs in marriage.

Fortunately, Rep. Taylor's unjustified and unprincipled attack on faith-based adoption providers has failed, and legal protections for these providers were added to a key funding bill, making passage of the provision by the House of Representatives likely. Still, it's important for Rep. Scott Taylor to know that we don't appreciate his betrayal of conservative principles and his decision to side with extremist voices like Nancy Pelosi against good and decent people of faith who want nothing more than to help children according to the tenets of their religious beliefs.

The Board of Education of Frederick County, Maryland is considering a policy that endangers the privacy and safety of the county’s students by allowing "access to facilities, including rest rooms, locker rooms, or changing facilities, that correspond to their gender identity […] without question" [emphasis added].

This ominous policy is far-reaching in its implications. If adopted, it would mandate that:

“All students [would] have access to facilities, including rest rooms, locker rooms, or changing facilities, that correspond to their gender identity. Access [would be] provided without question or additional complicating procedure. Students, including non-binary students, [would] determine which facilities are consistent with their gender identity."

“Under no circumstance [would] any student [be] required or directed to use a private use facility.”
“Students [would be permitted to participate in sports and phys. ed. Classes] in a manner consistent with their gender identity” and “[t]he gender identity of student-athletes [would not be required] to be disclosed to coaches, teammates, opponent’s coaches, or anyone else….”

On “overnight field trips,” any student would have “the opportunity to room with others according to their gender identity,” and while efforts would be made to “accommodate any student who desires greater privacy… no student should be isolated.”

Students and all staff who work with students would be required to refer to students by their chosen name and pronouns, and be provided “a current and complete list of preferred names and pronouns for all students” to be used “in every interaction.” There would also be no dress code for events based on gender.

Finally, and most dangerously of all, the policy states: “Depending on privacy needs or a transgender student’s own personal transition, school staff are authorized to work with students (and their families, if students explicitly wish) to provide options that may support a student’s needs” [emphasis added] - which implies that schools might work independently of parents in implementing policies having to do directly with children’s health, safety, privacy, and general welfare!

This policy is not only absurd, it is dangerous. With this policy, the Board of Education adopts the view of LGBT activists that “gender nonconforming” or “non-binary” students are the only ones with “rights,” and ignores the basic rights of privacy and safety of all other students. It puts the agenda of gender redefinition, a political tool being used by radical activists throughout society, ahead of the privacy and safety of students in intimate spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms. To satisfy the whims of activists and powerful lobbyists from Hollywood and Washington, DC, the Frederick County Board of Education would - without regard to parents’ wishes - force students to use the restroom, to shower, and even to cohabitate overnight with members of the opposite sex! All this in the name of “creating [a] welcoming and affirming]” environment for students who suffer from gender confusion!

So now it is time for us to take action!

Here is how you can help:

We have launched an online petition to the Board of Education urging them to reject this dangerous policy. Please visit and sign this petition right away!

Secondly, if you are able, consider attending the next Board meeting, where this policy is scheduled to be discussed. The meeting will be on Wednesday, June 14th at 6:00 PM in the FCPS Board Room, 191 South East Street in Frederick.

Finally, please share this email with your friends and family in Maryland, especially in Frederick County, and alert as many people to this urgent matter as you can!

Washington, D.C.–The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), CitizenGO and the International Organization for the Family (IOF) today wrapped their #FreeSpeechBus tour intended to spark a national discussion about the biological truth of gender with a visit to the nation's capital in Washington, DC. The organizers said the tour revealed the ugly side of the LGBT movement, which engaged in violence and assault, and inflicted substantial property damage, in a failed effort to derail the bus tour. They also said that the response to the tour indicated deep coordination between the LGBT movement, Democratic politicians and anarchists who are committed to the destruction of civil society. Organizers said the tour was a success in that it highlighted the vicious intolerance shown to anyone in society who expresses dissent regarding the transgender agenda.

"We launched the #FreeSpeechBus tour as a way to spark a conversation about gender, that it is determined by biology rather than by emotions and feelings, and to call for all sides to respect the free speech rights of citizens to debate these issues without fear of being demeaned, harassed, or threatened with retaliation," said Brian S. Brown, president of NOM and IOF. "What we encountered was a sustained, violent, coordinated attack designed to shut us down and force us to just go away. They failed to stop the tour or silence us, and, ironically, in the process made our very point that they don't want to debate the issues and instead will use force and political power to silence Christians and all Americans who understand that biology determines gender."

On the first day of the bus tour, the #FreeSpeechBus was attacked by two LGBT activists while parked near the United Nations in New York City. They assaulted the African American bus driver and destroyed several of the bus's windows with a hammer, while also using graffiti to cover the bus with militant "trans liberation" messages. After repairs, the bus continued the tour to Boston, New Haven, Philadelphia and concluded in Washington, DC. Along the way, it was frequently met by an angry mob of LGBT extremists and anarchists. It was revealed that prominent Democratic politicians were involved in promoting the violence and hate, including coordinating with anarchist groups.

"In Philadelphia, Mayor Jim Kenney's office was deeply involved in organizing the violent demonstrations against us, including coordinating with anarchist groups that are closely watched by the FBI," said Ignacio Arsuaga, president of CitizenGo. "The mayor's Office of LGBT Affairs proudly referred to themselves as 'an accomplice' in organizing protests which turned violent, with attacks on the bus and on police officers by gay activists and anarchists. At least one of them was arrested and bus organizers were prevented from speaking, an act of intolerant bullying the Mayor's office takes pride in. Meanwhile, while we were being prevented from engaging in a discussion with the protestors, the mayors of both Philadelphia and Boston ordered LGBT/transgendered flags to be flown at City Hall."

Brown noted that the intolerance and violence shown to those who hold traditional, majoritarian beliefs about the biological nature of gender is a powerful argument why Congress should move forward immediately to pass the First Amendment Defense Act, legislation which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against people of faith based on their views of gender and similar matters. "No American should be subjected to discrimination or harassment by the government simply for standing by their deeply held beliefs about the nature of gender, marriage and similar subjects. Citizens on both sides of these debates should be able to express their viewpoints without the heavy hand of government harassing and discriminating against them."

# # #

To schedule an interview with a representative of any of NOM, IOF, or CitizenGO, please contact:
Joseph Grabowski, [email protected], (202) 276-4404.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Writing at The Daily Signal, our good friend Ryan Anderson comments on a leaked draft of a forthcoming executive order from President Trump's administration that protects religious liberty on several fronts. The leak itself, and the ensuing coverage in the media, may exert pressure on the administration not to issue the order, but Ryan explains why we should all hope that that doesn't happen. This order is "good policy and entirely lawful."

It tells the entire federal government to respect federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions that make clear the free exercise of religion applies to all people, of all faiths, in all places, and at all times—that it is not merely the freedom to worship.

It notes that religious organizations include all organizations operated by religious principles, not just houses of worship or charities. And it follows the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in saying that religious exercise “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice,” not just those absolutely required by a faith.

It instructs all agencies of the federal government, “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,” to reasonably accommodate the religion of federal employees, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It instructs the secretaries of health and human services, labor, and treasury to finally grant relief to the Little Sisters of the Poor and others who weren’t exempted from the Obamacare abortifacient and contraception mandate.

It instructs the secretary of health and human services to ensure that all citizens have the ability to purchase health care plans through Obamacare that do not cover abortion or subsidize plans that do.

It instructs the secretary of health and human services to ensure that the federal government does not discriminate against child welfare providers, such as foster care and adoption services, based on the organization’s religious beliefs.

It adopts the Russell Amendment and instructs all agencies of the federal government to provide protections and exemptions consistent with the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to all religious organizations that contract with the federal government or receive grants.

It instructs the secretary of the treasury to ensure that it does not revoke nonprofit tax status because a religious organization’s ordinary religious speech deals with politics, or because it speaks or acts on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife, that a person’s sex is based on immutable biology, or that life begins at conception.

It instructs all agencies of the federal government to refuse to recognize any decision by a federally recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to an organization because of such beliefs.

It instructs all agencies that they may not take adverse action against federal employees, contractors, or grantees because of their speech about marriage outside of their employment, contract, or grant, and that agencies shall reasonably accommodate such beliefs inside of employment, contract, or grant.

Disturbing news this week of some changes underway in the American Bar Associations's (ABA) "Model Rules of Professional Conduct." The first report came on Monday from Judson Phillips in The Washington Times:

In its recent meeting, the ABA changed part of the model rules regarding attorney conduct. That kind of minutia is guaranteed to generate yawns from 99 percent of Americans. But every American should be alarmed by this because the purpose of these rules is to do nothing less than drive conservatives from the legal profession and ultimately deny conservatives their day in court by denying them legal representation.

The new rule states in part, “(Paragraph G) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.”

[...]

The important part is where it says discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical that manifests bias or prejudice toward others. In plain, non-lawyer English, if a lawyer happen to not approve of homosexual behavior, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, Islam or any number of other opinions and comments on them, the lawyer can lose their law license.

This rule is not limited to the courtroom. If a lawyer posts something on social media or offers an opinion that is not an approved opinion, they can and will be disciplined.

The purpose of this model rule is simple. It is to silence conservative lawyers.

Frighteningly, the ABA leaders’ statements verify that they understand — and intend — the ramifications of [the new rules]. President Paulette Brown advocates that the ABA must prevent “bias” in ways that go far beyond current law. Committee member Drucilla Ramey insists bar authorities go “to the top of the legal profession” to “incentivize” attorneys to change their views and speech on these issues, views and speech often informed by attorneys’ religion. All this, despite committee testimony that such a rule has “little relation to concerns” arising in most lawyers’ offices, could be “used tactically against someone inappropriately,” and will “have a chilling effect on something that has always been in the best traditions of the bar: representing minority views and unpopular positions or clients.”

[...]

The ABA’s un-American censorship regime is beyond draconian; it coerces conformity regarding religious and political beliefs on a level unprecedented in American history. It borders on fascism, and must be explicitly repudiated [emphases added].

NOM will keep you apprised of this situation as it develops, and we encourage all our members to remain vigilant about these kinds of encroachments on religious freedom in the name of LGBT "equality."

By NOM Staff|Posted in Ethics, Free Speech, Law, Media, News|Comments Off on Soon, for lawyers, "the only opinions allowed will be liberal opinions"

Another sad story of the "tolerance" of the LGBT movement comes to us today from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, writing at CNSNews.com:

In May, Javier Chavez, senior store detective at the Macy's store in Flushing, New York, received a phone call stating that a male had entered the ladies room with a female companion. A female customer, and her daughter, were afraid to enter because of the male's presence. A security employee who reports to Chavez advised the man to leave and use the men's room. He left claiming to be a female. He then complained to store officials that he was asked to leave.

Chavez was subsequently told by an Assistant Store Manager that certain males can use the ladies restroom. This was news to him. A few days later, an assistant security manager told him that transgender persons can use the bathroom of their choice.

He said he had just become aware of this policy, stating that it was contrary to his religion and the Bible. But he hastened to say that he would nonetheless enforce Macy's policy.

That's where one would think the story would end: but it doesn't:

Macy's would not leave this alone, and this is where it crossed the line.

Chavez was then summoned to meet with the Human Resources Manager, who suspended him. He was later terminated.

"After my employer learned that I was a practicing Catholic, with religious concerns about this policy," Chavez says in his formal complaint, "I was terminated because of my religion, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law."

In a shocking story out of the UK, a university postgraduate student on a path to become a social worker was expelled for posting on his personal Facebook page his opposition to gay 'marriage.' The "fitness to practise" panel at Sheffield University told student Felix Ngole, a committed Christian, that his post, "may have caused offense to some individuals" and that his publicly stated views would jeopardize his ability to operate as a social worker. They promptly demanded he turn in his student ID card.

Triggered by a single complaint, Sheffield University's action effectively closes Christian students out of the social work profession and is the latest in an ongoing effort to marginalize supporters of traditional marriage. Apparently realizing the totalitarian nature of their action and the fact that it is illegal, the university went to length to explain that it's position was not based on Ngole's views per se, but the fact that he expressed them! This is little comfort to the hundreds of millions of Christians across the globe who fervently believe that marriage is what God said it was - the union of one man and one woman.

If stating views that cause "offense to some individuals" is the standard for fitness to enter the social worker profession, then presumably those who support same-sex 'marriage' are not eligible to be social worker either since there are so many people, likely a majority, who believe in traditional marriage. Of course no action has ever been taken by Sheffield University or anyone else against anyone for expressing support for redefining marriage, showing the university's position to be nothing but a smokescreen to punish a view of marriage that is not politically correct.

Ngole promises that litigation will follow. Please keep him in your prayers.

The YouTube website has named a video produced by NOM, "No Offense," as among four of the best examples of creators applying the "Fair Use" doctrine. "Fair Use" affords content creators the ability to use short segments of copyrighted material without permission for purposes of commentary, criticism, parody and news reporting, among other uses.

NOM produced the "No Offense" video in 2009 to highlight the outrageous treatment given to Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean. Prejean was asked by gay blogger Perez Hilton about gay 'marriage.' She responded that, 'no offense to anyone' but she believed marriage was between one man and one woman. Perez went on to ridicule her with vulgar insults and highly offensive language. The video served to educate people about the attempts by gay activists to silence supporters of marriage.

Until now, YouTube has operated a highly criticized approach to copyright claims, essentially taking down videos whenever a claim of copyright violation is made. Thus, copyright claims become a weapon in public debate where these claims prevent the public from seeing videos that discuss critical issues. In contrast, commercial advertising stations rarely take down material employing a "fair use" of copyrighted material, and certainly never without giving the creator an opportunity for input.

YouTube has now pledged to help video creators defend against improper take down demands when the creator has properly applied the "Fair Use" doctrine in the use of copyrighted material. Our video is an example to creators of how to fairly use copyrighted material.

This situation with YouTube is but one example of how hard NOM has to fight to get our position on marriage out into the public domain. Opponents of marriage continue to wish to silence us and other believers in the truth of marriage. We are pleased that YouTube has recognized our work as among the best to utilize copyrighted material in commentary and criticism.

The Kim Davis debacle presents the American public with something oddly reminiscent of events past. Pundits on both sides of the same-sex "marriage" debate have cited "the wrong side of history" as a reason to stop fighting for the truth about marriage. When put to the test of actual history, however, the argument holds no water. The Town Hall explains:

Image via New York Times/Ty Wright/Getty Images

[One of] the main arguments from gay marriage proponents and conservatives who have given up the fight [is this:] The rule of law must be respected, and therefore everyone, from the clerk to the courts, must comply.

The rebuttal to this argument lies with Martin Luther King Jr., who sat in a jail cell for refusing to comply with Jim Crow: “An unjust law is no law at all.”

What defines an unjust law? One in which those who impose it do not comply with it. I would further add that any law which violates natural law or resists science or market systems falls into the same desiccated category. By the way, everyone seems hell-bent on forgetting that this national imposition of homosexual marriage did not occur from elected officials or democratic consensus, but the arbitrary turn of phrases from five unelected, unaccountable judges. Once again, former Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee had it right: “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.”

The court which justified “separate but equal” would overturn itself fifty-six years later. Roe v. Wade is facing increasing resistance from science and technology, as well as moral and legal suasion, and has not yet crossed the fifty-year mark. The Obergefell decision is barely two months old, yet across the country Americans are not complying, including Kim Davis. How amazing and compelling that her act of nullification occurs in Kentucky, where Founding Father Thomas Jefferson directed his Resolutions against federal tyranny three hundred years ago.

...

Kim Davis, like civil rights activist Rosa Parks, refuses to comply with an unjust court ruling based on a misunderstanding of sexuality and marriage.

Many colleges today unfortunately see themselves as the standard bearers of "progressive thought" and "equality." Following the trend of popular culture, universities believe it is their role to spread the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" as well as new theories on gender and race relations. When students refuse to acquiesce to their ideologies, however, colleges often react in unjust and intolerant ways. LifeSiteNews reports on one such case:

Gender and homosexuality politics are among the areas the professors are looking to influence the young people in their classes, along with race and immigration ideology.

The affronting terms that could land students in hot water in a number of Washington State University classes include “illegal alien” and “illegals,” CampusReform.org reports, but also considered oppressive and hateful by one teacher are the very definitions of gender, “male” and “female.”

...

A Marquette University student was prohibited from articulating his Biblical view of marriage last year, and a tenured professor was fired from there last year as well for voicing his view in support of marriage.

Johns Hopkins University denied a pro-life student organization recognition in 2013 until threatened with legal action.

Religious freedom banners were prohibited at Sinclair College in Ohio a year earlier.

A lawsuit was filed against Los Angeles Community College District in 2009 after a professor censored and threatened to expel a student who had given a speech on marriage and his Christian faith in a public speaking class. The professor had also told his class they were a “fascist (explicative)” if they voted for California’s Proposition 8 in defense of marriage.

It is a great hypocrisy when the so-called proponents of "tolerance" become worse than the very people they claim to be fighting. Help us expose these deceitful ideals and bring the hypocrisy about "equality" to an end.

Gov. Chris Christie, falling fast in the presidential polls, is attempting to remake himself into the “law and order” candidate, and he’s targeting Christians who do not wish to personally participate in gay "marriage" ceremonies.

Image via ABC News/(Mel Evans/AP Photo)

Across the country people have been sued, fined, had their businesses closed and been informed the state could seize all their personal assets because they do not wish to participate in something that goes against God’s design – marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Yet Christie calls this “discrimination” and says that they “need to follow the law.” What specific law is Christie referencing? Does he mean the federal law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) that provides that government has a duty to provide reasonable accommodation to people with sincere religious beliefs? Or perhaps he’s referring to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which provides accommodation for “conscientious objectors”? Most likely he’s referring to the illegitimate ruling of the Supreme Court in redefining marriage, but that ruling said nothing about forcing everyone to participate in it. LifeSiteNews reports:

[R]egarding the religious freedom of Christian-owned businesses, he [Christie] said, "I'm someone in this country who believes in law and order. I'm a former prosecutor. ... We need to enforce the law in this country in every respect – not just the laws we like, but all the laws."

During the "Presidential Soapbox" at the Iowa State Fair last week, Christie said much the same thing. "We have a system of laws in this country, and those laws need to be followed," he said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision constitutionalizing same-sex "marriage."

"Businesses ... should have to be able to do business under the laws of our country," Christie expounded. "When I take an oath of office as governor, my oath of office is to enforce the laws of the state of New Jersey. Not the laws I like or the laws that I agree with, but all the laws."

Christie characterized Christians who seek to live their faith in the business world as discriminatory. "Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate, no."

In the past, Christie has also said that Christian clerks must violate their faith and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He also signed a bill making it illegal for counselors and therapists to help gender-confused minors come out of the gay lifestyle.

Sadly, Gov. Christie has a history of abandoning marriage rather than challenging illegitimate judicial rulings. He dropped a defense of his state’s traditional marriage law because he thought he would lose the fight. In the presidential contest, Christie has so far failed to sign NOM’s Presidential Marriage Pledge.

In a fiery article featured on Breitbart, John Nolte pens a loaded opinion piece, that comments on the recent developments in one of the infamous “wedding cake” episodes. Aaron and Melissa Klein have been not only unjustly fined for invoking their religious rights, but they have been ordered to remain silent after trying to speak up about the discrimination they have faced from the state, and from the proponents of “tolerance” - the same-sex marriage agenda:

A judge in Oregon has issued a gag order denying two Christian bakery owners from speaking out against same sex marriage.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” [Administrative Law Judge Alan] Avakian wrote.

The gag order is meant to stop Aaron and Melissa Klein from publicly speaking out about their desire to not bake cakes for same sex weddings. The State’s order came after the Kleins were interviewed by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and after the State fined the Kleins $135,000 for “emotional damages” incurred by a lesbian couple after the Kleins refused to bake their wedding cake.

Towards the end of the article, John Nolte gives a terse summary of how quickly religious rights and free speech have been eroded and slashed with the onset of the same-sex marriage movement. Consider their arguments through the years:

1995: We don’t want marriage, just civil unions.

2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.

2014: Bake me a cake, or else.

2015: Your opinion against same sex marriage is illegal.

The same-sex marriage agenda may believe they have scored a victory, but Americans don’t take being tread on lightly. We expect these types of attacks against American principles will awaken the silent majority to demand action protecting their rights.

Over the past few months, there have been several examples across the country of discrimination against individuals who hold Christian beliefs. These cases stem from same-sex marriage activists, some of whom unleash harsh and uncompromising attacks against individuals who in good conscience, cannot support same-sex marriage ceremonies due to their religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, as Russell Shaw from Aleteia opines, these attacks are only a preview of the challenges that traditional marriage supporters will face, particularly those who are practicing Christians:

The persecution of the Catholic Church and other morally conservative religious bodies has begun in the United States. As predicted, it isn’t—thank God—bloody persecution like the persecution of Christians in many countries. But it’s real persecution and likely to get worse.

This new persecution currently has two prongs.

One consists of pressuring individual religious believers to cooperate with public policies inimical to faith. The other prong is pressure targeted at religious groups and institutions to adapt their programs to the promotion of values hostile to the sponsors’ moral convictions.

When and if the Supreme Court announces its discovery of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it will be taking a giant step in both directions and paving the way for more. As we saw in Indiana earlier this year, efforts to protect the right of conscientious objection to the radical redefinition of marriage will come under even fiercer assault.

Shaw puts forth Archbishop Chaput’s argument that the reason we are facing such a devastating attack on freedoms and rights is due to a lack of a “moral consensus”:

In a talk several weeks ago to seminarians of his archdiocese, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia pointed to the driving force that lies behind the new persecution—a radical collapse of moral consensus, reflected in a disastrous breakdown of public moral discourse.

“The biggest problem we face as a culture,” Archbishop Chaput said, “isn’t gay marriage or global warming. It’s not abortion funding or the federal debt….The deeper problem, the one that’s crippling us, is that we use words like justice, rights, freedom and dignity without any commonly shared meaning….Our most important debates boil out to who can deploy the best words in the best way to get power.”

We are all too familiar with the reality of how anyone who does not wish to participate in celebration of a same-sex ‘wedding’ – whether they be florists, bakers, photographers, inn keepers or what-have-you – are targeted by the LGBT community. Also, they are increasingly targeted by government officials for harassment and punishment, sometimes under threat of losing all their personal assets. The message has been that the law must force everyone to participate in the “celebration” even if it violates a business owner’s deeply held beliefs. Now comes word from Canada – which has been dealing with the consequences of redefining marriage for over a decade – that it’s not even enough for a business owner merely to participate in the celebration.

Nicole White and Pam Renouf liked the service they got from Esau Jardon of Today’s Jewellers in Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador, who took their deposit and proceeded to design and build them two engagement rings. They even recommended the store to friends.

But by the time one friend went there, the Mexican-born Jardon had put up a sign in his shop window marking Mother’s Day—and his strong, traditional Christian beliefs: “The Sanctity of Marriage IS UNDER ATTACK; Help Keep Marriage Between Man & Woman,” it read.

In redefining marriage, Canada has opened up private citizens to serious discrimination for their own personal beliefs, marking the end of freedom of speech:

Referring to recent decisions by courts and human rights tribunals against Christian vendors who refused to serve homosexuals, Dreher (Blogger at The American Conservative) concluded on an ironic note. The pressure on Jardon to return the deposit marked “the next phase in the March of Progress. You must not only bake the cake, or arrange the flowers, or make the ring, you must hold the correct opinion when you do it.”

Jardon defends his right to his own opinion. “One of the reasons my family chose to move to Canada was the rights that it offered, the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, both of which at the time seemed to be very limited in Mexico,” he said.

The United States needs to pay attention: as Canada is clearly exemplifying, everyone is affected when marriage is redefined.